Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD vs. Intel: Battery Life Investigated

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 1:40:25 AM

Not exactly suprising considering the intel can't even play a dvd.

Edit - the AMD *will* run Crysis on low at 20+ fps.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 1:57:18 AM

are you blind

"Considering these systems are as close as we can get to "identical", AMD takes a real pounding in battery life testing. The closest result (the idle test) has the Intel platform providing 20% more battery life, while the best Intel results (DVD playback and heavy web surfing) give about 35% more battery life. Averaging all five results, the Intel-based NV58 delivered 28% more battery life than the AMD-based NV52. Ouch."
Related resources
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 2:02:49 AM

No I'm not blind. Do you realise how flawed that 'review' is?

The intel has an igp that can barely draw lines on a screen whereas the AMD has the best IGP in existence. You pay a price for that sort of performance, in this case you pay it in power draw.

If they had to show gaming benchmarks in that, you'd see a line of zero's for the intel's fps and you'd see a bunch of low 20's for the AMD. The reason for that is the AMD can *actually* play games and the intel can't, at all. Just because that is intel's best effort at graphics doesn't make it close, as the review clearly stated :-

Quote:
On the other hand, the AMD platform comes with much better integrated graphics, so if you would like to do a bit of 3D gaming on occasion (at low to medium detail levels) AMD easily wins the graphics benchmarks.


Do you think that sort of power comes for free?
August 6, 2009 2:03:32 AM

Arent there new 45nm parts coming? I thought there was. And I know theres the new igp. So, lets be fair here, in ttwo months, lets compare AMDs system after all the new parts vs Ibtels last gen not this one
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 2:06:34 AM

More than half of that AMD's power draw will be coming from the HD 3200 igp, which is actually pretty competent at running modern games at low settings. It is by far and away the most advanced part on either machine.

That reviewer should be hanged at dawn for such a ludicrous comparison. How do these idiots even get jobs when they clearly have no clue?
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 2:07:54 AM

jennyh said:
No I'm not blind. Do you realise how flawed that 'review' is?

The intel has an igp that can barely draw lines on a screen whereas the AMD has the best IGP in existence. You pay a price for that sort of performance, in this case you pay it in power draw.

If they had to show gaming benchmarks in that, you'd see a line of zero's for the intel's fps and you'd see a bunch of low 20's for the AMD. The reason for that is the AMD can *actually* play games and the intel can't, at all. Just because that is intel's best effort at graphics doesn't make it close, as the review clearly stated :-

Quote:
On the other hand, the AMD platform comes with much better integrated graphics, so if you would like to do a bit of 3D gaming on occasion (at low to medium detail levels) AMD easily wins the graphics benchmarks.


Do you think that sort of power comes for free?


Saying that the intel cannot play a dvd is an absolute lie is my point.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 2:17:46 AM

The only 'lie' is that reviewer claiming that those systems are as close as they can get to 'identical'.

How can that be the case when one is a low spec gaming/HD laptop and the other is...I dunno what the intel is supposed to be? It can't game and it's HD playback will be worse than anyone could reasonably be expected to accept.

Would you do a power draw review when one system had a discrete gpu and one didn't? Because that is practically the difference between those igp's. No wonder there are no benchmarks, it would have shown just how flawed that review is when the intel couldn't score double figures in any game.
August 6, 2009 2:24:17 AM

Hold on, everyone. Think, This may be dirty pool here. How long before we see 45nm mobile cpus?
My point is, compare ANY 65nm AMD part, which we all know, as well as Anand does, they dont come close to AMDs 45nm cpus, and does ok against Intels cpu at 45.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 2:25:34 AM

Obviously you didn't read or cannot comprehend, the article clearly states benchmarks are coming.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 2:28:51 AM

BadTrip said:
Obviously you didn't read or cannot comprehend, the article clearly states benchmarks are coming.


And I bet it won't be a seperate review like this one.

If Anand did a 'laptop gaming' review and use that garbage intel GMA then there would be an uproar, justifiably so. Doing a battery life comparison when one of the machines has the best igp around is every bit as bad.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 2:28:55 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Hold on, everyone. Think, This may be dirty pool here. How long before we see 45nm mobile cpus?
My point is, compare ANY 65nm AMD part, which we all know, as well as Anand does, they dont come close to AMDs 45nm cpus, and does ok against Intels cpu at 45.



I totally understand your point, but the point of the article is to compare what is available now.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 2:30:48 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Hold on, everyone. Think, This may be dirty pool here. How long before we see 45nm mobile cpus?
My point is, compare ANY 65nm AMD part, which we all know, as well as Anand does, they dont come close to AMDs 45nm cpus, and does ok against Intels cpu at 45.


That was my first thought jaydee. The new AMD's will be out in what, a month and they are gonna be targetting battery life as a major selling point. What a surprise to see Anandtech doing a battery life review with power hungry AMD parts. I wonder how much that cost intel's bribery department.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 2:30:52 AM

jennyh said:
And I bet it won't be a seperate review like this one.

If Anand did a 'laptop gaming' review and use that garbage intel GMA then there would be an uproar, justifiably so. Doing a battery life comparison when one of the machines has the best igp around is every bit as bad.


the benchmarks are being added to the existing article.
August 6, 2009 2:43:16 AM

If AMD doesnt use their new K10 based duals, and doesnt make them 45nm, and then doesnt use them in mobiles, theyre being stupid
August 6, 2009 2:49:41 AM

Ya know what I see here? Listen up. Everyone knows how they just thew anything 65nm away, didnt even try. Well, I see the same thing here. Theyre waiting on 32nm, duals or not. I think thats their plansm ands its hurting them.
Theyre soo hurting if they cant diversify to this level, and at least come up with something theyve already got, with a lil more work and time
August 6, 2009 3:16:53 AM

I hate it when people take articles clearly titled as to the purpose of the article, and then try to make it about something else....and then claim bias and a poor review. The article was about BATTERY LIFE, NOT GAMING BENCHMARKS!! You even admit it pointed out the amd was the better gamer...so why are you complaining. People reading the article will want to know which has better battery life, not which is the better gaming laptop. Most people don't even try to game on laptops, so that is of less concern to most people than how long they can go without plugging in. I just wish AMD enthusiast would stop inventing reasons to get mad...it just doesn't make sense why you have such a big chip on the shoulder.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 10:20:48 AM

The reviewer deliberately made it out that those two laptops were 'almost identical', which is complete and utter RUBBISH. How can that be the case when one has the best igp you can get and the other has an intel igp? And one has a 45nm cpu compared to an older, more power hungry 65nm cpu?

Shouldn't they have waited a few weeks until the newer 45nm AMD laptops are out?

It's as clear a case of an intel bought and paid for review you'll see. Intel know AMD are weeks from releasing much better laptops so they bought this review at anandtech. There is no other explanation for Anandtech suddenly deciding to do a battery life 'review' at this time.

As for your point on most people not trying to game on laptops, 1) You have no clue what most people do on laptops and 2) Most people sit with their laptop on their lap plugged into the wall so who cares about battery life anyway?
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 10:26:50 AM

Quote from the author of the review :-

Quote:
I've run all the benchmarks; I'm just writing the main article at this point and it should be done for Friday. In terms of gaming, as I mentioned in this piece, the AMD solution is substantially faster - anywhere from 50% to 200% faster, with the average being around 125% faster. (The 50% comes from Empire: Total War, incidentally.) To be honest, I was actually surprised at the number of games the Intel IGP could manage to *load* - last time I looked at that on a GMA IGP there were only a few modern games that would try to load at all. LOL


Identical? When one of them has an IGP that is substantially superior what did they expect? It's a complete farce of a review and you know it. It consumes about 1/3rd more power because it has a 125% faster igp...duh???
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 10:36:23 AM

BadTrip said:
Saying that the intel cannot play a dvd is an absolute lie is my point.

Of course Intel can play DVDs, she's just joking!
August 6, 2009 11:14:53 AM

jennyh said:
The only 'lie' is that reviewer claiming that those systems are as close as they can get to 'identical'.



Actually, you lied too by saying the Intel one won't play a DVD.

JennyH, you have some very good points that the systems are NOT identical, one system provides more functionality. I really would like to have seen benchmarks of everything in this article so it would demonstrate the advantages of the AMD IGP.

JennyH, you need to tone down the rabid AMD support, you have a great point here but it gets lost in your abrasive presentation.
August 6, 2009 11:46:04 AM

"As for your point on most people not trying to game on laptops, 1) You have no clue what most people do on laptops and 2) Most people sit with their laptop on their lap plugged into the wall so who cares about battery life anyway?"
Please show me one link from this site or any other where someone has asked for a gaming machine and a laptop was recommended. If possible people will plug in, but the whole point of a laptop is portability, where often you can't plug in...classrooms, wifi hotspots, job sites, in the car, ect have limited outlets available....
Yes, the reviewer might have overstated the similarity a little, but he went out of his way to point out exactly what you are complaining about....and he never claimed they were "identical". Once again you deliberately ignore the purpose of the article to find a reason to claim bias. If this had been an article on which one was the better gamer would you then come running with hysterical claims that it was ignoring the fact the intel has a longer battery life, even if it pointed it out in the article? NO, of course you wouldn't.
You keep quoting the article where he pointed out the AMD has a stronger IGP and then saying "but the AMD has a better IGP"....yeah, just like the reviewer said. Soooo....if anyone wants that they know which one to buy because of this review. But, if they are reading the article based on the title and purpose of the article, they are probably more interested in which solution will give them the most battery life, even if it comes at the sacrifice of a weaker IGP.
Since you can't argue the facts of the article, you try to manufacture something to make it look like AMD was somehow slighted. I am tired of seeing this from AMD enthusiast. I have nothing against AMD, and often recommend them for budget builds. But you let your own predjudice blind you to the instances when intel can be better for someone else. In your eyes Intel is never better in any circumstance, and the whole world is out to get AMD. You do your cause a disservice when you post things like this because YOU make AMD and AMD enthusiast look bad, not the article.
August 6, 2009 12:01:47 PM

Anand hopefully will be doing what Cleeve will be, showing the differences between those igps, but, I doubt it
August 6, 2009 12:03:06 PM

And, if Anand does do 1, itll be just 1, you can bet on that, as Im sure he wont run a preview on a review as was done here.
Its not like it was mandated, like weve seen with some gfx cards, where a preview showing a limite amount of games could only be shown due to NDA. I question the motives behind running this preview of the review
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 12:41:46 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Actually, you lied too by saying the Intel one won't play a DVD.

JennyH, you have some very good points that the systems are NOT identical, one system provides more functionality. I really would like to have seen benchmarks of everything in this article so it would demonstrate the advantages of the AMD IGP.

JennyH, you need to tone down the rabid AMD support, you have a great point here but it gets lost in your abrasive presentation.


It's not rabid AMD support, the problem is we consistently see garbage reviews like this on site after site. The last one was here on THG when they compared a badly prebuilt AMD to a hand picked part i7, then chose games that suited nvidia (which was of course in the i7), then came to the conclusion that a 955 BE was bottlenecking a 4890...wtf?

Now Anandtech come out with this garbage, dress it up as a battery life comparison between two 'almost identical' laptops....which frankly couldn't be further from the truth. You wonder why some of us get pissed at the bias? These discrepancies have to be pointed out.

The really sad thing here is, if you wanted to play any games at all, the AMD would be a much better choice at $80 less. Any game, that intel cannot play games to save itself and it's HD playback will be much worse than the AMD's also. What does that leave? Ah yes, battery life. Battery life for doing what? Surfing? If that's all you want, you can get it a helluva lot cheaper than $580, but it's about as useful as that intel laptop gets.
August 6, 2009 12:47:51 PM

@jennyh
Can you tell us if there is ever a point when you would recommend an intel solution over an AMD one for any build? Answer that and we'll see where the bias really is.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 12:50:36 PM

Yes I'd recommend an i7 system over a comparitively priced AMD system.
August 6, 2009 12:58:20 PM

" The last one was here on THG when they compared a badly prebuilt AMD to a hand picked part i7, then chose games that suited nvidia (which was of course in the i7), then came to the conclusion that a 955 BE was bottlenecking a 4890...wtf?"

If you'll remember, they also did a followup which completely turned the tables and gave the AMD the absolute best case scenario against a crippled i7 system for the same price...and the i7 still won....
I didn't see you complaining the i7 had a weak overclock compared to the top possible overclock on the AMD on that article. I didn't see you complaining the AMD got crossfire 4890s while the i7 only had 4870s. I didn't see you complaining the i7 was crammed into a small form factor while the AMD got a superior full size build. And now with x58 motherboards under $200 i7s win the value war at the top end by an even larger margin. But no...you're not a rabid AMD supporter who ignores it when AMD is given advantages over intel, but cries foul and creates reasons to question the articles any time intel is shown superior in something....Thats not you at all.
August 6, 2009 1:09:25 PM

"Yes I'd recommend an i7 system over a comparitively priced AMD system. "
And what if someone WANTS a laptop with the longest battery life...what would your recommend to them?

There is no bias here. Just because its not biased IN FAVOR of AMD you perceive it to be that way. Take a look at the recommended graphics articles and the recommendations in the forums. 90% ATI....does this mean there is an ATI bias here? Look at the most common budget build recommendations since the Phenom II AM3 came out...75% AMD...You see articles praising both for their strengths, but you ignore those, and focus only on the articles where intel is shown to have an advantage.
August 6, 2009 1:09:56 PM

Again, that was Cleeve. He said he was surprised by the results and would delve into it further in his own review, as he too wasnt satisfied.
But gain, [H] and other sites will do this type of thing, and promote it as gospel.
I want to see a better explanation from Anand as to why he did a preview of his coming review.
If the coming review is about all things laptop, then hes bised already using this preview
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 1:20:32 PM

The bias is in the description of both laptops.

"Gateway has stepped up to the plate and sent us two all but identical laptops."

All but identical? That immediately gives people the impression that every intel laptop will have better battery life than every AMD laptop.

You know what? He could barely have chosen two further extremes. That intel with it's 45nm cpu and igp that draws about 1w on full load because it's complete and utter garbage vs a 65nm AMD and the most powerful igp you can get.

All but identical? Sheesh.
August 6, 2009 1:36:46 PM

You are picking one sentence out of the entire article as the foundation for your claim of bias....which I might understand if he didn't go on to fully explain exactly what the differences were later on in the article. Do reviewers make mistakes in wording sometimes? YES. Do they have an incredibly difficult job in comparing two completely different platforms? YES. Does this mean they are biased? NO! That is why most comparison articles break it down into a smaller category. Like gaming performance, or battery life, or value, ect. I can guarantee you there are just as many overstatements, slights, misprints, and mistakes made against Intel as there are against AMD. But you ignore those, and scan every article with a fine tooth comb to try to find something to claim bias against AMD. Even if it is just one throw away sentence that is later refuted by the same reviewer in the same article.
You can either read articles and take the information and facts that are in them to form your own opinion, or you can go around and try to find reasons to be mad all the time because your processor of choice doesn't always win...it sounds like you have chosen the latter.
August 6, 2009 1:41:29 PM

jennyh said:
The bias is in the description of both laptops.

"Gateway has stepped up to the plate and sent us two all but identical laptops."

All but identical? That immediately gives people the impression that every intel laptop will have better battery life than every AMD laptop.

You know what? He could barely have chosen two further extremes. That intel with it's 45nm cpu and igp that draws about 1w on full load because it's complete and utter garbage vs a 65nm AMD and the most powerful igp you can get.

All but identical? Sheesh.



What the...

The laptops are very similar, but the AMD one does have a better IGP.

Couldn't have chose to further extremes? What are you smoking?

Intel's 45nm, does AMD have a 45nm offering? No, they don't! It's not Intel's fault that AMD doesn't have as advanced of a manufacturing process, and yes, of course that will reflect in the review, it's one of the advantages of the Intel technology.

JennyH, do a forum search and search for posts by "BaronMatrix" and "9inch" and "Thunderman". Also, take a look at Sharikou.Blogspot.com . Then, while you're at it, go and register at AMDZONE.com.
August 6, 2009 1:43:09 PM

My question still stands unanswered, why? Why make a preview of a review under such hard to do, possibly prone to mistake scenarios even more possible in happening?
The preview is showing bias, clearly, and its done for what reasons?
If Anand is stooping to the "every car ever made may blow up, story at 11" crap the media has sunken to, we already know theyre biased, and only profiteering as well, in this case, it could be shown as both
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 1:45:03 PM

You know what belial, if you want to go through every review and pick out the parts that poor little intel got picked on that's up to you.

If I care to point out the obvious flaws in certain reviews, that is up to me.

This review has been sold as a battery life comparison between two almost identical laptops. That is a lie. With AMD's new 45nm parts just around the corner, what better time for a comparison of battery life using AMD's older, more power hungry parts?

Coincidence? Maybe if it was the first time it had happened.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 1:47:19 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Intel's 45nm, does AMD have a 45nm offering? No, they don't! It's not Intel's fault that AMD doesn't have as advanced of a manufacturing process, and yes, of course that will reflect in the review, it's one of the advantages of the Intel technology.



You know what, AMD have 45nm parts coming out very soon yet anandtech do a battery life comparison now? Why didn't they wait? Why now I wonder...


We all know exactly why it's been done now and only intel apologists would pretend otherwise.

August 6, 2009 1:47:37 PM

To me, theres a right way, and a wrong way of doing things. Letting possible bias go as a main preview is the wrong way, does diservice to the reader as well as any company on the short end of it.
This is the way you lead into a future article IMHO:
"There are, of course, a lot more HD playback quality features to look at and test, but instead of concentrating on that here, we will research it extensively in our next Avivo HD, PureVideo HD, and Intel Clear Video comparative review in the very near future. Stay tuned."
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-785g-chipset,23...

August 6, 2009 1:47:42 PM

jennyh said:
With AMD's new 45nm parts just around the corner, what better time for a comparison of battery life using AMD's older, more power hungry parts?


A day late and a dollar short. You compare current technology to current technology. If AMD doesn't have 45nm then boo-hooo and oh well.


Your objections about the IGP are valid, but whining about the manufacturing process is not.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 1:49:19 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
My question still stands unanswered, why? Why make a preview of a review under such hard to do, possibly prone to mistake scenarios even more possible in happening?
The preview is showing bias, clearly, and its done for what reasons?
If Anand is stooping to the "every car ever made may blow up, story at 11" crap the media has sunken to, we already know theyre biased, and only profiteering as well, in this case, it could be shown as both



You're wasting your time with the likes of badtrip, TC and belial jaydee, they are just intel apologists who won't actually answer the points being made they'll just say 'boohoo you don't like it when AMD lose'.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 1:50:33 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
A day late and a dollar short. You compare current technology to current technology. If AMD doesn't have 45nm then boo-hooo and oh well.


Your objections about the IGP are valid, but whining about the manufacturing process is not.



Why review now? It's not like anandtech don't know there are new parts coming so why now, and why say that they are almost identical when they are clearly not?

You got the dollar short part right, the dollar being what intel bribed the author with.
August 6, 2009 1:53:20 PM

Hey, I hate it on the tube, dont care much for it on the net either. Theres nothing to this "preview", as much bias as there is info.
If people are willing to accept this, more power to em. To me, its crap, eploitative and frustrating. And thats without any bias even being shown
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 1:56:24 PM

consumers won't be caring about bias, they like spoon fed and this review gives intel marketing departments more ammo when new AMD parts are out and they can quote this "recent" review.

also 3dmark 01 is like 8k vs 5k score between the two...
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 2:01:06 PM

1st of all as stated in the article it is very difficult at best( I would say impossible) to get a true apples to apples comparison. There isnt recent intel laptops with ati graphics.
The point of the article is rather simple. Get two laptops with specs as close as possible and compare battery life.

On a side note. We all know the AMD will smack the Intel in gaming/HD playback. We all the intel will smack the AMD around in basically everything else(core2 vs k8 at same clock speed=Intel is faster).

And to the idea that most people that have laptops simply plug them in and dont care about battery life. What planet do you live in. The only people I know that do such a thing is basically WoW players that have oem pc or none at all. Also people with good machines but just have to take wow with them to a friends place. Also people that dont have a desktop and use a laptop only. But the rest of the people(the vast majority) DO care about battery life. To think that people dont care about battery life is flat out stupid. Just look back when Intel had netburst cpus in laptops.

Take all that bs Intel bribes anand crap back to amdzone
August 6, 2009 2:01:47 PM

jennyh said:
Why review now? It's not like anandtech don't know there are new parts coming so why now, and why say that they are almost identical when they are clearly not?

You got the dollar short part right, the dollar being what intel bribed the author with.



You do understand that AMD is always going to be behind in CPU manufacturing process, right? They always have been. Earlier in the decade they were able to still out-do Intel with the older process.

So you're suggesting that reviews shouldn't be done until AMD has a chance to catch up on the manufacturing process? That's like playing a game a golf and giving a player a handicap.

It's not Intel's fault AMD doesn't have the resources to be on 45nm mobile parts.

I've said that I agree with you that the laptops are not identical or "nearly" identical, I agree with you on a IGP part and that it may muddy up the review.


However, you're doing the typical AMD-droid behavior of accusing people of taking bribes, writing up massive conspiracy theories, and trying to do anything possible to discredit anything good said about Intel.


IGP - you have a point
Manufacturing process - you don't


What do you propose? That they use an old Intel process to make the comparison fair? That they wait for poor little AMD to catch up?

Whatever!
August 6, 2009 2:05:54 PM

Hmmm beginning to see why ding dong ding works so well
August 6, 2009 2:06:17 PM

someguy7 said:
Take all that bs Intel bribes anand crap back to amdzone


Agreed. They currently have a good stock pile of tinfoil hats over there too, which are very useful at AMD fanboy conventions.
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 2:07:16 PM

lol mt post about this in anand forums got deleted about 10 minutes after it posted
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2009 2:09:48 PM

You can't seriously be telling me anybody would want that intel because of it's battery life. For what?

It cannot game, it's HD playback is poor. Why would you want that...just get an atom instead?

Laptops are supposed to meet certain standards and that intel fails with anything graphically. They are not 'nearly identical' and it could hardly be more clear.

Total farce of a review and nothing at all has been learned about battery life comparing two closely matched laptops, never mind 'almost identical'.
August 6, 2009 2:11:47 PM

If it doesnt matter, turn the tables. Do a preview showing only the igp abilites. No apologies, just mention everything else to come later.
Who here would like and approve of this approach?
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!